Sorry - you won't be seeing ME contributing to the air ambulance. I was involved in a cost / benefit study of the first one. It's noisy, impressive ... and ineffectual. Keep helicopters for offshore rescues, heart attacks on Mt. Snowdon and lost child searches in the coutryside. In town, a motorbike paramedic will reach the casualty as fast as the 'copter. And the 'bike paramedic is at the scene - the whirleybird is 100ft above, waiting for the traffic police to clear the road so he can land. We could have 5 motorbike paramedics (attending to five DIFFERENT heart attacks across London) for the cost of the one heccilopter. Yes - it's impressive - but the cost/ benefit analysis seems to say it does NOT work (better than simpler/ cheaper sources of help) inside the M25 or anywhere built up. There is (as yet) _no_ reported set of accounts where a helicopter service has saved more lives than you would have saved by spending the SAME moey on boring old Paramedic on 'bikes and in cars. Big name sponsors like Virgin or the newspapers like paying for a helicopter - but if saving lives matters - the same funds spent on CONVENTIONAL lifesavers (and the motorcycle paramedics) would be much more use. Until we have 'Jetsons' type flying cars that can land in an unprepared urban environment, we have to think in terms of wheeled vehicles to carry our lifesavers (in town). Cheers, Hoddy PS: In any case, the RAF and Navy are the only people whose pilots are really good enough for low level, high stress, emergency flying...